Nope, but the majority is usually the determining factor in 'catholic consciousness.' Even if a small minority defend the truth at a certain time, eventually all the Church will come to believe it, in essence sanctioning their views. So time will tell the tail, and the determining factor will be the beliefs of the majority of the Ecclesia.

Pravoslav09, I find it very disrespectful that when you refer to Metropolitan Laurus and Patriarch Alexis of sorrowful memory. I see it as extremely unnecessary and disrespectful; I don't care if you don't like them, you shouldn't show such disrespect. Do you really think your going to win over any new converts to the Old Calendarist Church by being insulting to others? What happened to preaching the Gospel in a loving manner instead of attacking everyone else?

St. Papa Nicholas Planas and Blessed Elder Ieronymos who were zealously old calendar but you didn't see them running around calling people heretics and apostates did you?

Exactly . What happened with "respect your elders" . At least if you didn`t respect them while they were alive Proslalov09 , respect their memory , and let them rest in peace.Don`t dig for corpses.

... I believe I can say this without saying that everyone in the entire Moscow Patriarchate was the spawn of Satan. I believe that the creation of the Moscow Patriarchate was the result of Stalin ...Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and then before my ordination and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

... Heretics are much more capable than pagans of mixing the truth with lies and thus deceiving the faithful. ...

I am yet to hear the reasoning of groups that have split from ROCOR for ROCOR's alleged "chage of the position" if they still commune faithful from Jerusalem and Serbia, with whom they were in communion while being ROCOR.

BTW, when Patriarchate was restored in Moscow, bolsheviks were not in power there at all. That much about "mixing the truth with lies...".

Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator

. I do agree with him on the point that heretics are much worse than pagans.

Let me see if I understand this teaching I am hearing on this Orthodox forum:Heretics are much worse than pagans.So, if a Roman Catholic were to convert to Orthodoxy, then he would have to believe that his mother and father who taught him to pray the Lord's prayer and the Apostles Creed, that his mother and father who read to him from the Bible, especially the New Testament, that his mother and father who taught him to love Jesus and the Holy Mother of God, that his Catholic mother and father were much worse than pagans? Do I have it right?

. I do agree with him on the point that heretics are much worse than pagans.

Let me see if I understand this teaching I am hearing on this Orthodox forum:Heretics are much worse than pagans.So, if a Roman Catholic were to convert to Orthodoxy, then he would have to believe that his mother and father who taught him to pray the Lord's prayer and the Apostles Creed, that his mother and father who read to him from the Bible, especially the New Testament, that his mother and father who taught him to love Jesus and the Holy Mother of God, that his Catholic mother and father were much worse than pagans? Do I have it right?

Only if I judge said Roman Catholics to be heretics, which I don't. I recognize that most Roman Catholics grow up deceived into believing a number of heretical teachings, but that doesn't make these individuals heretics in my eyes. To me, heretics are those who once embraced Orthodox teaching yet have fallen away to follow after false doctrines. Those who have grown up in heretical traditions and have never known the fullness of Orthodox doctrine I cannot rightly call heretics.

There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

So what? Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes. The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment. The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity. Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ? How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

Poeple must be aware that there are radical differences canonically between schism, heresy, and apostasy.

Would something here who is knowledgeable about these matters please give us the definitions. It would give us all a better idea what we are discussing.

Father, I kept it when I split several posts from the original thread that had a similar name in Russian (see Slavic Languages), merely to honor the original poster. I did not feel any right to change it, again, not because I am personally of the opinion that ROCOR is entirely apostatic, but simply because the original poster is entitled to HIS opinion and is free to call his threads anything. --Heorhij, mod.

Poeple must be aware that there are radical differences canonically between schism, heresy, and apostasy.

Would something here who is knowledgeable about these matters please give us the definitions. It would give us all a better idea what we are discussing.

Father, I kept it when I split several posts from the original thread that had a similar name in Russian (see Slavic Languages), merely to honor the original poster. I did not feel any right to change it, again, not because I am personally of the opinion that ROCOR is entirely apostatic, but simply because the original poster is entitled to HIS opinion and is free to call his threads anything. --Heorhij, mod.

Thanks for the explanation, Heorhij. So basically we need the original poster to justify the accusation that the Russian Church Abroad is apostate and has abandoned Christ. It seems to me that to do that he needs to prove that the Church of Russia has abandoned Christ, as also the entirety of the Orthodox Churches which maintain communion with the Church of Russia. I believe that the confusion here centres on the wrong use of "apostasy" by the original poster.

"If we have a form of religion on the outside, but inside we are opposed to the rulers of the church as well as to kings and princes, we are using our faith as a pretext for evil." (St Hilary of Arles, commentary on 1 Peter 2:16-17)

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity. Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ? How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

Well... I've watched this thread develop and decided to enter it only to answer your question, Father. I do not agree with the subject of this thread, essentially because I do not believe the ROCOR is in apostasy nor the MP for that matter. I also believe that those who make such claims need to back them up with substance and so far I've seen nothing of the sort... just baseless accusations. I'm also a bit concerned by the type of language (i.e. spawn of Satan) that has been permitted.

It just amazes and saddens me that the Orthodox Church has so many "issues".

We all have (I assume) the same goal - to live as Christ instructed, to spread the Word of Salvation to all, to please God, and to preserve His Church.

Imagine how grand it would be if everyone, and I do mean everyone, put aside their pride (because it is pride that divides, and keeps us from calm discussion and realization of "truth")...of which I too, am guilty ... but, truly what joy it would be if we were all One? Can you even imagine?

If we Orthodox truly loved one another and greeted each other with sincere joy and trust?

However, I realize that in order to preserve the Truth...Man must weed out certain misconceptions, anomalies, untruths, etc...and that bickering is inevitable.

But, still it hurts to see our Orthodox so split.

I love you all!

Peace!

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Let me take just one example since it is the one for which I can supply documentation easily, about the kidnapping of Mertropolitan Vitaly by laurist [sic] representatives. It will show how he is twisting things.

(Btw, "laurist" is contrary to Forum Rules which require the proper form of address and titles for Orthodoxy clergy.)

There is an eye witness report from Fr Paul Iwaszewicz which describes thissad episode and the assault on Vladyka Vitaly (a 91 year old man) by thethugs hired by Bishop Michael Donskoff. Fr Paul describes the actions ofBishop Michael's men as a "violent assault" and "outrageous and unjustifiable."

I will now post the sworn statment of Metropolitan Vitaly of thrice blessed memory. The text is respected in it's integrity, and nothing can be changed, given that it constitutes a legal document of public domain, and altering it is actionable. By respecting the integrity of the text, both myself and the forum are protected by Law against any legal action.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------This document is Metropolitan Vitaly’s certified account, originally written in French and sent by his attorneys to the courts, concerning the attack on his person rendered by the representatives of the Lavrite Synod on November 22, 2001.

Deposition

On November 22, 2001, approximately 8:45 in the morning, when I was at the Holy Transfiguration Skete, in Mansonville, seated at the table with clergy and laymen, a group of people burst into the dining room. These people were not invited by anyone and no one advised us of their arrival. They forcefully burst in where no one bid them to enter. They broke the lock on the entrance door. They did not bother to announce their arrival, knock on the door, as civilized people do or ask for permission to enter. They violated the sanctity of a private residence and disturbed the course of monastic living. They persistently threatened and offended those present.

Heading the assault, was bishop Michael Donskov, (Simeon Donskov, further referred to as simply – Donskov), and priest Paul Iwaszewicz, (further referred to as Iwaszewicz), both foreigners. With them were lawyers Michel Tajfer (Michael Taillefer, further referred to as Tajfer), and Stephan Trihey, (further referred to as Trihey), aided by hired security guards. Neither the lawyers nor the hired bodyguards bothered to introduce themselves. When asked who are you, they refused not only to name themselves but did not answer, especially neglecting to explain the reason for their arrival. Some of them were recognized by those who were witnesses of prior assaults as described in other documents.

Violently bursting in, these people tried to present themselves as peace officers, and threatened to arrest, on the spot anyone who refused to co-operate. They demanded that no one move. Several times they cut the phone lines. They interfered with the use of the fax machine, whether it be to transfer documents or for copying. Lawyers went to so far as to expose themselves as police officers, and when asked if they had a warrant, they advised yes, but refused to serve it or state who had issued it. They did not produce any papers and we did not see any documents on their persons. Then without permission, Tajfer, with his accomplices, first conducted a thorough search including that floor on which afterwards would unfold the main perpetration. This illegal and humiliating search was conducted throughout all of the rooms, without any permission or explanation and without any care. At a minimum, the following were confiscated without any warning, without a receipt and without analyzing to whom they belonged: car keys, registration, my passport, my medical insurance card and a package containing documents, my will and other papers. They rummaged in my desk and through other furniture in my study. The same was done in the secretary’s study and in the reception hall.

Tajfer personally opened all of the water faucets, creating a noise to muffle all that which was to take place.

Donskov entered, but his arrival was also totally undesirable, (because of his prior improprieties), to which he was informed of.

Not paying attention to reprimands Donskov approached me. Having recognized him, I reiterated my anathema, which was previously declared more than once, orally and in writing, to which he deigned not to answer. I very clearly made him understand that I do not intend to speak with him. After falsely reporting that I, well, was not allowed to speak with him, I agreed to speak in hopes of reasoning with him. I did not know that this offer was simply a trap.

And so, I climbed to the second floor. Attorney Tajfer followed preventing me from turning back. Tajfer and Iwaszewicz threatened one of my guests for taping the actions of the attack on videotape. His camera was broken; an act representing the roughest violence perpetrated, the capture of another’s property and its destruction and the infringement on human rights. Despite this, the videocassette remained in tact, a testament to the above facts. I certify, that it fully complies with the truth and am enclosing it to this claim.

My aggressors at this point arranged a small meeting amongst themselves. My objections did not stop the meeting and were only a prelude for things to follow. They locked-up those who presently climbed up to the second floor and left one guard to guard them. Another guard also guarded the stairs. The suffering victims described this real capture in detail.

They forcibly took my wallet, with personal documents and money and returned it only after the police force of Quebec intervened. They took my car keys and returned them after a week by a middleman, Alexander Iwaszewicz.

Stopping their pretensions of wanting to talk with me, Donskov and Iwaszewicz threw themselves over me and aggressively began to dress me with the obvious purpose to draw me outside and to abduct me. I resisted as I could. They tumbled me down to the floor so that it would be easier for them to pull Iwaszewicz’s coat on me. I tried to beat them off, but their hirelings helped the two apostate clergymen. I tried to shout, but Tajfer began to choke me with a white/dark blue down pillow, which he especially brought purposely from the car for that reason.

Physical violence and threats achieved apogee when one of my companions, who just received instructions from my lawyers, decided to approach us. He yelled to Tajfer that my lawyers are with a judge, (who successfully managed to report all by phone and fax), who demanded they stop everything and to release me. Then my attackers decided at once to take me away, which they tried to do, furiously threatening me. Even after having received the order (from the judge – editors), all of them still disclosed themselves as peace officers and roughly forced me to descend downstairs.

In the dining room I noticed shocked and powerless expressions on the faces of my close friends and interlocutors. Then I started to protest against my abduction to New York, having mentioned that I am a free Canadian citizen and have committed no crimes. I persuaded my friends to protest and to photograph all of this on film. This they did: photos were taken from this moment up to the moment I was placed into the limousine. I testify to the authenticity of these photos and enclose them to this deposition.

New threats were issued at those who did not approve and doubted the legality of this operation or at those wishing to protect me. Notwithstanding, Donskov, Tajfer, Iwaszewicz and their hirelings, forcefully with improbable roughness, dragged me towards the front door. At the same time, Tajfer, with the above mentioned down pillow and Donskov, with the other case-less pillow, prohibited me from screaming. Seizing, pushing and dragging me, they simply also beat me! Donskov struck from behind my face, through a pillow. Iwaszewicz grabbed me by the right hip, so that I could not escape from Donskov, coiling, in order to free myself from the pillow and Tajfer with his fist hit me on the chest through the down pillow. I fell down. Tajfer, Donskov and some hirelings uprooted me out of the hands of those who tried to keep me from falling and keep me in their protection. I was dragged, pushed, struck from all directions up to the door of the dining room, which lead into the courtyard, where a parking lot for automobiles was located.

Amazed at Donskov’s aggression, I repeated to him an ecclesiastically retaliatory verdict.

From the door of the dining room, they dragged me up to the cars of the kidnappers. On the way they several times dropped me to the ground, lifting me by my legs, head downwards, striking me to force me to go and dragged me as one would drag any kind of thing.

Having reached the limousine in which they were going to drive me away, (a huge black car with dark glass windows – why dark?), they forced me to climb inside. Two times I evaded, resisting or at least tried to detain the events. Blows to the head and kidneys forced me to bend, but I once again tried to evade. Finally, Donskov climbed into the car on the other side and forcefully pulled me from within. The door shut behind me.

Forcibly they held me in the car, with closed doors for an extended period of time, with the unpleasant and shameful company of Donskov and Iwaszewicz. While outside, Tajfer was on the phone discussing something. The car started to move, then stopped, bumper to bumper with the just now arrived police car. Only later, my friends’ request was granted that one police officer would sit with me for my protection.

Only with the insisting of my friends was I allowed to drink a glass of water, (the first glass being maliciously splashed out by Tajfer). My kidnappers would not agree on opening a window for some fresh air. This was done later, at the insistence of a police officer. Only a half-inch on the side of the driver was opened, by the orders of Tajfer and Trihey. Later, this privilege was granted on my side of the car, giving me more rest from the likes of Donskov and Iwaszewicz.

After lengthy negotiations and again under the insistence of the police, Tajfer, Trihey and these others, took a long time to agree to let me go to the lavatory, moreover under supervision! Again, I was obliged to the Quebec police for freeing me from the presence of Donskov, when being transferred to another car of their motorcade. The same thing was repeated, when dinner time approached; it was required that I be accompanied by two police officers in order to satisfy Tajfer and Donskov’s spiteful nature, to keep me confined in the car at all cost.

During their licentious behavior, sirs Tajfer and his colleague made many false accusations on my behalf. They insisted I was an American citizen, that I was from New York and that Iwaszewicz is my trustee. I clearly denounce all these false statements. At last, after many long hours, the police of Quebec, pending the courts decision, released us from the unbidden guests. But, despite the fact that the police had told them to keep away from the Skete, they bothered us and remained until the late of night, and the next day, with several illegal appearances, which we immediately informed the police. And still a group of attackers hid in cars on the night of the 22nd and 23rd of November 2001 on our property, in the alley leading to the Skete’s cemetery. The Royal Canadian Frontier Guard drove them off our property at two o’clock in the morning.

Also, I must add, the attackers were armed with spritzes (sprays) of a suspicious nature.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that all actions of the attackers were premeditated and rehearsed, and they had spent the previous night in close proximity from us. A very thorough training was witnessed from all of their actions. Resources, monetary, material and human, to realize this operation are impossible for budgets in our Churches.

Their lawyers were not ashamed to break the rules of professional ethics. Illegal methods of violence are not similar to the polite behavior of the members of my church and are more of a reminder of that world from which my church departed.

I serve notice against my aggressors, named above, against their accomplices and those who gave the order, be it orally, in writing or as financial support, (direct or indirect).

I do not exclude, that (and in this case I also serve a complaint on this fact), for the realization of this operation, the aggressors used my own personal monetary funds.

I emphasize that many witnesses were present at the events of November 22, 2001. I at this time, mention only a few of these witnesses:

The above posted legal document constitutes a solid and indisputable proof of what really happened, which can be easily verified by anyone interested in the issue. Here is the link to the pictures mentioned: http://www.monasterypress.com/metro22FrameSet.htm .

It just amazes and saddens me that the Orthodox Church has so many "issues".

We all have (I assume) the same goal - to live as Christ instructed, to spread the Word of Salvation to all, to please God, and to preserve His Church.

Imagine how grand it would be if everyone, and I do mean everyone, put aside their pride (because it is pride that divides, and keeps us from calm discussion and realization of "truth")...of which I too, am guilty ... but, truly what joy it would be if we were all One? Can you even imagine?

If we Orthodox truly loved one another and greeted each other with sincere joy and trust?

However, I realize that in order to preserve the Truth...Man must weed out certain misconceptions, anomalies, untruths, etc...and that bickering is inevitable.

But, still it hurts to see our Orthodox so split.

I love you all!

Peace!

Thanks for this, Liz. As long as pride rules (even the pride of being right!) and as long as egos reign (I'm right and I'll prove it) we're going to have this sort of division. As you posted, we should be about His business of sharing the good news and working out our salvation. And how do we work it out... with FEAR and TREMBLING. But sadly, that's not what I see... just accusations and name-calling. It's an indictment on our claims to be His Body. May He forgive us and have mercy upon us.

^ Anyone who has been following the "traditionalist" vs. "New ROCOR" debate over the years has seen all of the documents you've posted and has heard all of the arguments. I am reluctant to engage you and post responses refuting your claims because, quite frankly, after years and years of it, the discussion is tiresome.

Let me summarize:

-There are two versions of the Met. Vitaly story. Neither you or I know which one is true.

-There is much speculation over the "true" reasons for the union of ROCOR and the MP. The best either of us can do is speculate on those reasons.

-We can pull out official and unofficial statements of the Synod, of her individual bishops, of saints of the Church Abroad, or maybe even a vague prophecy or two until we're blue in the face. None of this will convince you of the ROCOR side, just as nothing your "side" has posted over the years has convinced me (or many others) of your version of truth.

All of the documents, perceived wrongs, statements, etc. amount to a version of history that can neither be wholly verified as true, or rejected as false. This is not mathematics- it is entirely subjective and open to interpretation. You have absolutely no way to "prove" you are correct, and neither do I. It is what it is. You believe ROCOR to be apostate. I don't. The presentation of proof texts and one singular interpretation of particular histories will get us nowhere.

« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 11:19:19 AM by Bogoliubtsy »

Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara

The presentation of proof texts and one singular interpretation of particular histories will get us nowhere.

Amen! And you are so right... it is tiresome in the extreme. Why don't we just drop it? In fact, I'm exercising some personal discipline by removing myself from this thread. Bad Douglas... bad for posting here!

There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

So what? Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes. The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment. The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.

But you've not described any consensus that can be called "the whole Church", unless you're willing to excommunicate all those who disagree with the majority.

Let me take just one example since it is the one for which I can supply documentation easily, about the kidnapping of Mertropolitan Vitaly by laurist [sic] representatives. It will show how he is twisting things.

(Btw, "laurist" is contrary to Forum Rules which require the proper form of address and titles for Orthodoxy clergy.)

There is an eye witness report from Fr Paul Iwaszewicz which describes thissad episode and the assault on Vladyka Vitaly (a 91 year old man) by thethugs hired by Bishop Michael Donskoff. Fr Paul describes the actions ofBishop Michael's men as a "violent assault" and "outrageous and unjustifiable."

I will now post the sworn statment of Metropolitan Vitaly of thrice blessed memory. The text is respected in it's integrity, and nothing can be changed, given that it constitutes a legal document of public domain, and altering it is actionable. By respecting the integrity of the text, both myself and the forum are protected by Law against any legal action.

...

The above posted legal document constitutes a solid and indisputable proof of what really happened, which can be easily verified by anyone interested in the issue. Here is the link to the pictures mentioned: http://www.monasterypress.com/metro22FrameSet.htm .

I'm not aware that a legal deposition given under oath necessarily means that the account given can be regarded as solid and indisputable proof of what really happened. It is still fundamentally one person's account of events, which can be contradicted at points by another person's account given in a legal deposition under oath. And there's also the possibility of perjury, not to imply that Metropolitan Vitaly perjured himself in any way--I'm just speaking in pure generalities that we need to always see perjury as possible when reading such legal depositions. All we can say, assuming that Metropolitan Vitaly offered the above statements totally in good faith, is that what he presented was merely his experience of events.

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity. Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ? How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

I suppose the OP is suggesting that the MP became so closely associated with the Communist government that it technically became atheistic...

In that case "apostasy" is an appropriate reference.

Though no, I don't agree that the MP actually became as associated with the Communists as the OP suggests.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity. Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ? How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

I suppose the OP is suggesting that the MP became so closely associated with the Communist government that it technically became atheistic...

That's what I gather, too. The allegation I see is essentially this:1. The Moscow Patriarchate fell into apostasy during the Soviet era by cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Soviet government and has never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.2. Communion with apostates makes those who so commune apostates themselves.3. Therefore, ROCOR falls into the same pit of apostasy through her act of formal reunion with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate.

Do I believe the above? No, I do not. I'm just trying to express what I understand to be the logical rationale for why Pravoslav09 deems the ROCOR apostate.

Only if I judge said Roman Catholics to be heretics, which I don't. I recognize that most Roman Catholics grow up deceived into believing a number of heretical teachings, but that doesn't make these individuals heretics in my eyes. To me, heretics are those who once embraced Orthodox teaching yet have fallen away to follow after false doctrines. Those who have grown up in heretical traditions and have never known the fullness of Orthodox doctrine I cannot rightly call heretics.

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity. Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ? How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

I suppose the OP is suggesting that the MP became so closely associated with the Communist government that it technically became atheistic...

That's what I gather, too. The allegation I see is essentially this:1. The Moscow Patriarchate fell into apostasy during the Soviet era by cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Soviet government and has never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.2. Communion with apostates makes those who so commune apostates themselves.3. Therefore, ROCOR falls into the same pit of apostasy through her act of formal reunion with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate.

Do I believe the above? No, I do not. I'm just trying to express what I understand to be the logical rationale for why Pravoslav09 deems the ROCOR apostate.

Then I'm afraid they are going to have to join the Old Believers, if not some earlier sect. Besides the Lutheran-modeled Holy Governing Synod ruling the Russian Church for centuries before the communists took over, and its Western inspired practices, then there's the problem that it was in communion with those Churches cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Muslim governments, which have never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

So what? Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes. The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment. The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.

But you've not described any consensus that can be called "the whole Church", unless you're willing to excommunicate all those who disagree with the majority.

I see that you are in the OCA. One suggestion to resolve this satisfactorily in your instance as an OCA member is to approach your bishop and enquire if he counts the Moscow Patriarchate as canonical or uncanonical.

The question of excommunicating all those who disagree? - that would also be a decision for your bishop. I imagine that in fact he would treat gainsayers as excommunicate since he would probably not be willing to commune those such as the bishops and faithful of the Russian Zarist Church who deny the canonicity of the OCA's Mother Church. But of course that is up to his decision.

[That's what I gather, too. The allegation I see is essentially this:1. The Moscow Patriarchate fell into apostasy during the Soviet era by cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Soviet government and has never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.2. Communion with apostates makes those who so commune apostates themselves.3. Therefore, ROCOR falls into the same pit of apostasy through her act of formal reunion with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate.

Do I believe the above? No, I do not. I'm just trying to express what I understand to be the logical rationale for why Pravoslav09 deems the ROCOR apostate.

If this is Pravoslav09's reasoning then why single out the Russian Church Abroad? It means the OCA has apostasized and abandoned Christ by virtue of its communion with Moscow. Ditto for the Greeks, Jerusalem, Alexandria... etc. Pravoslav09 is saying the entire Orthodox world has apostasized and not merely the Russian Church Abroad which is, when all is said and done, a very tiny Church compared to the rest of them.

Where do we go for a trustworthy declaration that Pravoslav09's opinion represents the consensus of the Orthoodox Church?

If this is Pravoslav09's reasoning then why single out the Russian Church Abroad? It means the OCA has apostasized and abandoned Christ by virtue of its communion with Moscow. Ditto for the Greeks, Jerusalem, Alexandria... etc.

I wasn't following the first of this discussion, when it was in the Slavic language forum, but I believe that's rather the point. The Old Calendrists already believed that the ancient patriarchates and autocephalous Churches were no longer Orthodox. By reuniting with Moscow (and through them all the the other autocephalous Churches), the contention is that ROCOR has fallen into the same apostasy as the rest of us.

The problem with that view is what I argued earlier--one cannot find a time when ROCOR was actually out of communion with the Churches in question. The reconciliation with Moscow involved the resolution of an administrative problem and the restoration of concelebration. It did not change ROCOR's basic position of intercommunion (and therefore status as part of the same One Church as the Greeks, Alexandria, Serbia, etc). The Old Calendrists (particularly those who have schismed from ROCOR as a result of the administrative change but also the Greek Old Calendrists whose bishops' episcopal succession derives from ROCOR) need to believe that ROCOR's reunion was a change in ROCOR's fundamental nature (i.e., apostasy from being an 'Old Calendar Church') rather than an administrative change in order to justify their own positions.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

So what? Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes. The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment. The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.

But you've not described any consensus that can be called "the whole Church", unless you're willing to excommunicate all those who disagree with the majority.

I see that you are in the OCA. One suggestion to resolve this satisfactorily in your instance as an OCA member is to approach your bishop and enquire if he counts the Moscow Patriarchate as canonical or uncanonical.

The question of excommunicating all those who disagree? - that would also be a decision for your bishop. I imagine that in fact he would treat gainsayers as excommunicate since he would probably not be willing to commune those such as the bishops and faithful of the Russian Zarist Church who deny the canonicity of the OCA's Mother Church. But of course that is up to his decision.

I'm not trying to find resolution to the question of whether the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical or not, for my mind is already made up. I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

During the rule of Czar Nicholas II, the Russian Orthodox Church elected Patriarch Tikhon as the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and restored the Moscow Patriarchate.

During that period of time, the elite of liberal revolutionary progressists began to gain force in the Russian Orthodox Church, and began to introduce their unorthodox ideology in Church circles. One of the most active and aggressive members of the elite was Met. Sergei Stragorodsky who began to disseminate and publish controversial theological works, which were sanctioned by the Synod of Bishops.

During the first stage of the Russian revolution, the liberal ideology began to be systematically disseminated, forcing a transformation in the political structure of the Empire. The Czar was forced to resign, and a new liberal provissional government was created.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, presided by Patriarch Tikhon, opposed the provisional government, and during the last free All Russian Synod, Bishops, clergy, monastics, and laypeople from all over Russia gathered to decide how would the Church face the new series of happenings. Among other things, the liberal revolutionaries, the provissional government, and all their adherents and supporters were placed under anathema.

In order to consolidate and legitimatize itself, test the grounds, and measure the reaction of people, the revolutionary emerging government formed it's own church, with the aid of Met Sergius, and other active revolutionaries. This new church was called "the Rennovationalist, or Living Church". The revolutionary government could not risk their close collaborators to public shame, loss of credibility and the fury of peole in case something went wrong, and decided to elect "disposable" persons to preside the Rennovationalist Church. While people like Met Sergius coached the government on how to form this new Church away from the public eye, others were in charge to carry on the plans in public and face the people directly.

And thus, at the beginning of the revolution there existed two parallel Churches, with their respective Synods of Bishops, the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Rennovationalist Church.

The project of the Rennovationalist Church, carried on the most dramatic revolutionary reforms, they openly denied some of the basic dogmas of the Church, disseminated State propaganda, and they reduced the rituals and customs to a minimum. The change was too drastic and sudden for people to accept, and the grand majority, realizing it was all a fabrication of the government, rejected it.

Seeing the great failure of the project, the government decided to change strategy, on one hand, it decided to remove and sanction the ones who in view of the people were the leadership of the Rennovationalist Church, to infiltrate rennovationalist clergy, such as Met.Sergei Stragorodsky, and using force to remove those who would not submit to them completely, and remained "enemies of the revolution".

When Met. Sergius made his act of public repentance in the Church, the people began to yell, begging Patriarch Tikhon not to accept him, saying that he's lying and is deceiving him, and Patriarch Tikhon was forced to explain that he does not have the authority to reject Met. Sergius, but given the seriousness of his sins, he was received simply as a monk, released from his duties until the corresponding Ecclesiastical Organ, put him to trial, and resolved his definitive status. In short, Met Sergius was under interdiction.

The revolutionary government made a "purge" inside the Moscow Patriarchate, to eliminate those who were faithful to Christ and remained firm in the Orthodox Faith. Some were brutally killed in public, others were taken to concentration camps, and others like Patriarch Tikhon, died under mysterious circumstances. (According to the extraofficial report of Patriarch Tikhon's personal physician, his death could be related to poissoning).

Once the rennovationalists took control of key possitions in the Moscow Patriarchate, they continued the rennovationalist project, and by the end of the 20's Met Sergius, made an official declaration submitting the Moscow Patriarchate to the control of the government, transforming it into government institution, and becoming the first Patriarch appointed by secular atheistic authorities.

The ground to consider the Moscow Patriarchate a secular government institution, and placing it under anathema is the following.

1.- Since it's very foundation in 1927, and further consolidation in 1945 by Stalin, the Moscow Patriarchate is an ally of the revolutionary government, falling by this, under the anathema declared by the All Russian Synod, against the revolutionaries and those with them. This anathema remains in full force even now.

2.- The capitulation the Church to the civil power, violates the Church canons concerning the civil power. To replace Christ as the head of the Church, with a civil power constitutes an apostacy.

The role of the Russian Government as the head of the Moscow Patriarchate was clearly seen in the process of the incorporation of a group of ROCOR members with the corresponding fonds, properties, and fellowship to the Moscow Patriarchate. This process took place largely in the Russian Embassy, and the Kremlin, where President V. Putin received Met Laurus and delegations ROCOR under MEt Laurs, in addition to the public official statements made by President Putin and government officials.

3.- The new church politics and the systematic reformations still carried on by the Moscow Patriarchate, is a continuation of the renovationist project, only in a more refined and very dangerous form. In this form, some of the external traditions are preserved, and there exist an carefully planned series of declarations, alternating unorthodox declarations, with traditionalist declarations, clouding the minds of the believers, consciously hiding from them the real agenda.

An example of this can be seen in the most recent declarations of the MP. Shortly after the appointment of Met Kirill as acting Patriarch, until the election of a new Patriarch, there were official statements saying that if he is elected Patriarch, one of his main tasks was to strengthen the ties between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church, and smooth the way for the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, given his good relationships with the Vatican. Shortly after his election as Patriarch of Moscow, Pat. Kirill made official statements in which he rejected any dogmatic compromise with the Roman Catholic Church, and suspended interreligious dialogue with them.

The Roman Catholic Church was not condemned by the Patriarch or the MP, and none of the catholic theories adopted by the MP, such as the jesuit "Social Christian Doctrine" have been recanted and removed, even tho interreligious dialogue was officially suspended, the interreligious activities between Roman Catholics and the MP have not stopped completely, and the Patriarch has not pronounced himself against a future visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, he can be critical in the future, but it's very unlikely for him to refuse the Pope an invitation to welcome him to Russia.

With this post, I hope many understand the wording in the subject of this thread, and the reasons why ROCOR can not change Her ecclesiology and follow the path of the new ROCOR under Met. Hilarion, ROCOR under Met. Agathangel, OCA, and others who have associated with the MP directly or indirectly, openly, or discretely.

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~ "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."

It is impossible to gauge if the opinion of the Russian Zarist Church comes close to this principle since nobody has any idea of this Church, who its bishops are and what credibilty they enjoy among the Orthodox, where its dioceses and parishes are, etc. The statement that the Russian Church is the "spawn of Satan" has no integrity when those making it will not come out of the shadows and identify themselves.

During the rule of Czar Nicholas II, the Russian Orthodox Church elected Patriarch Tikhon as the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and restored the Moscow Patriarchate.

No, the Passion Bearer had abdicated almost a year earlier. He wasn't ruling anything, including his own fate.

Quote

During that period of time, the elite of liberal revolutionary progressists began to gain force in the Russian Orthodox Church, and began to introduce their unorthodox ideology in Church circles. One of the most active and aggressive members of the elite was Met. Sergei Stragorodsky who began to disseminate and publish controversial theological works, which were sanctioned by the Synod of Bishops.

Some proof of this? In particular as St. Tikhon is the one who elevated him to Metropolitan?

Quote

During the first stage of the Russian revolution, the liberal ideology began to be systematically disseminated, forcing a transformation in the political structure of the Empire. The Czar was forced to resign, and a new liberal provissional government was created.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, presided by Patriarch Tikhon, opposed the provisional government, and during the last free All Russian Synod, Bishops, clergy, monastics, and laypeople from all over Russia gathered to decide how would the Church face the new series of happenings. Among other things, the liberal revolutionaries, the provissional government, and all their adherents and supporters were placed under anathema.

Any proof, as it would be seem to be overkill: the provisional government had fallen before the end of the All Russian Synod, free, btw, because of the provisional government: not even the Czar could interfere.

Quote

In order to consolidate and legitimatize itself, test the grounds, and measure the reaction of people, the revolutionary emerging government formed it's own church, with the aid of Met Sergius, and other active revolutionaries. This new church was called "the Rennovationalist, or Living Church". The revolutionary government could not risk their close collaborators to public shame, loss of credibility and the fury of peole in case something went wrong, and decided to elect "disposable" persons to preside the Rennovationalist Church. While people like Met Sergius coached the government on how to form this new Church away from the public eye, others were in charge to carry on the plans in public and face the people directly.

And thus, at the beginning of the revolution there existed two parallel Churches, with their respective Synods of Bishops, the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Rennovationalist Church.

The project of the Rennovationalist Church, carried on the most dramatic revolutionary reforms, they openly denied some of the basic dogmas of the Church, disseminated State propaganda, and they reduced the rituals and customs to a minimum. The change was too drastic and sudden for people to accept, and the grand majority, realizing it was all a fabrication of the government, rejected it.

Seeing the great failure of the project, the government decided to change strategy, on one hand, it decided to remove and sanction the ones who in view of the people were the leadership of the Rennovationalist Church, to infiltrate rennovationalist clergy, such as Met.Sergei Stragorodsky, and using force to remove those who would not submit to them completely, and remained "enemies of the revolution".

When Met. Sergius made his act of public repentance in the Church, the people began to yell, begging Patriarch Tikhon not to accept him, saying that he's lying and is deceiving him, and Patriarch Tikhon was forced to explain that he does not have the authority to reject Met. Sergius, but given the seriousness of his sins, he was received simply as a monk, released from his duties until the corresponding Ecclesiastical Organ, put him to trial, and resolved his definitive status. In short, Met Sergius was under interdiction.

The revolutionary government made a "purge" inside the Moscow Patriarchate, to eliminate those who were faithful to Christ and remained firm in the Orthodox Faith. Some were brutally killed in public, others were taken to concentration camps, and others like Patriarch Tikhon, died under mysterious circumstances. (According to the extraofficial report of Patriarch Tikhon's personal physician, his death could be related to poissoning).

Once the rennovationalists took control of key possitions in the Moscow Patriarchate, they continued the rennovationalist project, and by the end of the 20's Met Sergius, made an official declaration submitting the Moscow Patriarchate to the control of the government, transforming it into government institution, and becoming the first Patriarch appointed by secular atheistic authorities.

At least you recognized that Sergei repented of his involvement with the "Living Church" and St. Tikhon accepted him back.

The Living Church, btw, restored the Holy Governing Synod, not the Patriarchate.

Quote

The ground to consider the Moscow Patriarchate a secular government institution, and placing it under anathema is the following.

1.- Since it's very foundation in 1927, and further consolidation in 1945 by Stalin, the Moscow Patriarchate is an ally of the revolutionary government, falling by this, under the anathema declared by the All Russian Synod, against the revolutionaries and those with them. This anathema remains in full force even now.

1. Produce this anathema.2. Can you distinguish this from the Holy Governing Synod being an ally of Peter and Catherine, both of which placed disabilities over the Church?3. Since St. Tikhon also came to a modus vivendi with the Bolsheviks, I guess he would come under the anathema. What does that do to your ukaze 362?

Quote

2.- The capitulation the Church to the civil power, violates the Church canons concerning the civil power. To replace Christ as the head of the Church, with a civil power constitutes an apostacy.

So the Russian Church was in Apostacy since Czar Peter's creation of the Oberprokurator. Where does that leave you?

Quote

The role of the Russian Government as the head of the Moscow Patriarchate was clearly seen in the process of the incorporation of a group of ROCOR members with the corresponding fonds, properties, and fellowship to the Moscow Patriarchate. This process took place largely in the Russian Embassy, and the Kremlin, where President V. Putin received Met Laurus and delegations ROCOR under MEt Laurs, in addition to the public official statements made by President Putin and government officials.

And across the globe the basis of ROCOR's jurisdiction is the Russian Orthodox Church operating from the Czar's embassies and forts across the globe. Your point?

Quote

3.- The new church politics and the systematic reformations still carried on by the Moscow Patriarchate, is a continuation of the renovationist project, only in a more refined and very dangerous form. In this form, some of the external traditions are preserved, and there exist an carefully planned series of declarations, alternating unorthodox declarations, with traditionalist declarations, clouding the minds of the believers, consciously hiding from them the real agenda.

Yeah, they're all Freemasons.

Quote

An example of this can be seen in the most recent declarations of the MP. Shortly after the appointment of Met Kirill as acting Patriarch, until the election of a new Patriarch, there were official statements saying that if he is elected Patriarch, one of his main tasks was to strengthen the ties between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church, and smooth the way for the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, given his good relationships with the Vatican. Shortly after his election as Patriarch of Moscow, Pat. Kirill made official statements in which he rejected any dogmatic compromise with the Roman Catholic Church, and suspended interreligious dialogue with them.

The Roman Catholic Church was not condemned by the Patriarch or the MP, and none of the catholic theories adopted by the MP, such as the jesuit "Social Christian Doctrine" have been recanted and removed, even tho interreligious dialogue was officially suspended, the interreligious activities between Roman Catholics and the MP have not stopped completely, and the Patriarch has not pronounced himself against a future visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, he can be critical in the future, but it's very unlikely for him to refuse the Pope an invitation to welcome him to Russia.

Yes, Pat. Alexei of BLESSED memory rolled out the ol' red carpet for the Vatican.

Quote

With this post, I hope many understand the wording in the subject of this thread, and the reasons why ROCOR can not change Her ecclesiology and follow the path of the new ROCOR under Met. Hilarion, ROCOR under Met. Agathangel, OCA, and others who have associated with the MP directly or indirectly, openly, or discretely.

No instead she creates a new ecclesiology where she operates as a local Church outside its jurisdition, claiming to live in a government that disappeared nearly a century ago.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~ "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."

Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit. Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me." No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~ "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."

Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit. Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me." No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me. Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical. If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~ "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."

Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit. Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me." No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me. Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical.

No, that's not what I'm saying. All I've done is question your equation of the majority with consensus.

If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.

Again, majority does not equal consensus. If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go. Other than that, you're preaching to the choir if you think you need to convince me that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical.

1.- Since it's very foundation in 1927, and further consolidation in 1945 by Stalin, the Moscow Patriarchate is an ally of the revolutionary government, falling by this, under the anathema declared by the All Russian Synod, against the revolutionaries and those with them. This anathema remains in full force even now.

This revolutionary government collapsed in 1991. How is the MP still an ally of this government?

2.- The capitulation the Church to the civil power, violates the Church canons concerning the civil power. To replace Christ as the head of the Church, with a civil power constitutes an apostacy.

I echo ialmisry's concern about the Caesaropapism of Russian Orthodoxy from the reign of Tsar Peter the (not so) Great to the end of the Romanov Dynasty in 1917. The Tsar essentially made himself the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which would constitute apostasy according to your definition.

With this post, I hope many understand the wording in the subject of this thread, and the reasons why ROCOR can not change Her ecclesiology and follow the path of the new ROCOR under Met. Hilarion, ROCOR under Met. Agathangel, OCA, and others who have associated with the MP directly or indirectly, openly, or discretely.

Well, you've certainly explained your reasons for why we should not associate with the MP.

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof. As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia. I find this sufficiently convincing.

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof. As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia. I find this sufficiently convincing.

When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing. You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof. As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia. I find this sufficiently convincing.

When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing. You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position. I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world. If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof. As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia. I find this sufficiently convincing.

When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing. You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position. I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world. If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.

But in presenting this "consensus"--more like a majority, since you really haven't satisfactorily established for anyone other than yourself that this majority fits the definition of consensus--you ARE trying to convince us of the truth of your point of view. Why appeal to the majority or "consensus", as you call it, if you aren't?

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof. As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia. I find this sufficiently convincing.

When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing. You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position. I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world. If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.

But in presenting this "consensus"--more like a majority, since you really haven't satisfactorily established for anyone other than yourself that this majority fits the definition of consensus--you ARE trying to convince us of the truth of your point of view. Why appeal to the majority or "consensus", as you call it, if you aren't?

Let's call it a day. If every Orthodox Church and every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church who are we, a simple monk and a catechumen, to question the discernment of our hierarchs who have a gift from the Holy Spirit "to rightly define the word of truth."

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof. As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia. I find this sufficiently convincing.

When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing. You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position. I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world. If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.

But in presenting this "consensus"--more like a majority, since you really haven't satisfactorily established for anyone other than yourself that this majority fits the definition of consensus--you ARE trying to convince us of the truth of your point of view. Why appeal to the majority or "consensus", as you call it, if you aren't?

Let's call it a day. If every Orthodox Church and every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church who are we, a simple monk and a catechumen, to question the discernment of our hierarchs who have a gift from the Holy Spirit "to rightly define the word of truth."

I'm not a catechumen, for I was chrismated at Pentecost twelve years ago.

Besides, in your assertion that every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church is logically implicit the judgment that those bishops who don't are not true bishops, hence a veiled jab at Pravoslav09's bishop and possibly even Fr. Anastasios's bishop. Are you going to hide behind hierarchical discernment and not take responsibility for this?

Besides, in your assertion that every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church is logically implicit the judgment that those bishops who don't are not true bishops, hence a veiled jab at Pravoslav09's bishop

We do not actually know if the Russian Zarist Church possesses bishops. I cannot remember Pravoslav09 imparting this information. I may have missed it though. However there is no doubt from what he has posted, particularly in the Russian thread on the "Chronology of the Apostasy of ROCA(L)" that he sees our bishops as not true bishops.

Quote

and possibly even Fr. Anastasios's bishop.

I am not really aware of how Fr Anastasios' hierarchy calls it for our Russian bishops, whether his bishops see MP and ROCA bishops as authentic or not.

Quote

Are you going to hide behind hierarchical discernment and not take responsibility for this?

Hide? If my bishops were to inform me that a hierarchy of a particular Church is without grace I would, under obedience, accept their word for it. It's their call and not mine. I could ask about the Russian Zarist Church on the clergy list if you like? But I really would not feel comfortable taking a question about the Russian Zarist Church to my bishop Metropolitan Hilarion - he has a multitude of matters to deal with already.